It seems like there are a few different issues at play here: 1. In general, it doesn't sound like the police were the ones forcing the bars to hire police; tha

It seems like there are a few different issues at play here: 1. In general, it doesn't sound like the police were the ones forcing the bars to hire police; that was the city. Maybe there was some backroom deal happening where the police were paying off city officials to create that mandate, but if so the article doesn't allege it. As others have pointed out, there are valid (though debatable) reasons for why a city might want to force bars and public events to hire private security, and even some valid (but more questionable) reasons why they might want that security to be cops or former cops. 2. But then there's the racism angle, with the woman in the article claiming that the only reason her business was required by the city to hire private security was because "they’re racist and we’re Mexican". If it's true that's the reason her business was targeted then yes that's a problem that definitely needs to be dealt with; probably through a civil lawsuit and some serious public shaming. Though I'll note that would be the city's fault; not the police. 3. The article also makes a separate claim "some small business owners — particularly those owned by immigrants — have been led to believe they must hire MPD officers, or risk getting ghosted by police", which if true would be an actual protection racket that the feds should bring the hammer down hard on, though there doesn't seem to be any compelling evidence of that as of yet (as least, not as described in the article); just rumors and allegations so far. 4. And then there's the issue of some of the officers hired being really expensive and not good workers. IMO that's only an issue if the claims about a protection racket are true. Otherwise you could just fire the people who are being lazy and hire someone else, same as any other business. It might also be a good argument for why the city shouldn't be requiring officers in particular to be the ones hired (much more limited hiring pool). 5. Then there's the tax evasion issue, with some officers insisting on being paid in cash. That's the least important part of this in my opinion. Let the IRS deal with it if that's actually what's happening. (I don't know why I wasted so much time writing this summary, but now that I have I might as well post it... hopefully some find it helpful.)